"Very pretty" is I fear what we'll say for the movie. They had to show Harrison Ford...David Lynch showed with Twin Peaks that you can revisit a world without that world being some kind of weird remaster. I do appreciate remasters for video games, though.

I'm hopeful. Until proven otherwise, in Villeneuve I trust. Josh Brolin, while making Sicario, thought the film was going to suck based on last minute re-shoots and rewrites and indecisiveness on set, but he said Villeneuve proved him wrong big time.

Just a quick note in light of what Wilder said and Jenkins' avatar-Chungking Express is one of the few films ever that made me feel the world like Blade Runner did. I was reminded so heavily of the latter when watching CE and amazed because the way both films were shot were so different- BR is all sets and production design while CE is on-the-go, shooting on location. CE is of course, the real deal- it is alive, textured and lived in because Hong Kong is that way. At least part of it.

WKW can make a setting feel futuristic, fantastical and distant yet grounded in a way that others can't, even if he doesn't intend on doing so.

Shinichiro Watanabe of Cowboy Bebop and Samurai Champloo fame will be writing and directing an anime short which takes place between the two Blade Runner films. Music by Flying Lotus.Sounds pretty fucking amazing.

You give eye candy to critics and if it's a blockbuster they pretend like it's the best thing they have ever seen. Roger Deakins is a good DP? I didn't know...

I saw the trailer and...the original Blade Runner is a beast of its own. What is it, exactly? Sci-Fi? A weird dream? A nightmare? Hell. What's the plot of that movie? I remember the mood. How real and yet eerie it is.

What does the trailer sells? Well. Someone is making an army of replicants. Ryan Gosling, you better call the lead of the original Blade Runner!

I'm not saying it will be bad, I'll see it and I'll probably enjoy the movie. I'm sure Villeneuve will be able to add something to it.

Just saying, avoid every review, trailer, comment and post if possible before watching this. Despite watching the first trailer, the plot was a mystery to me and unfolded in unexpected ways which was pretty neat.

It's a good movie. It's clearly separate from the dreamy, hypnotic original but it has its own atmosphere and has an old-school sci-fi story vibe despite it very obviously being a modern film. It's pretty weird and trippy in its own right, and probably would have been even better with less dialogue- in fact, less dialogue, fewer scenes and overall greater abstraction could have made this really, really special (the original benefited greatly from a dreamlike ambiguity as we all know). That said, there's meaningful content in the movie (along with an unconventional and surprisingly good relationship), which builds upon the themes of the original work.

I know some of you guys will find it to be too visually clean in both cinematography and production design (I did at times) but the team did great work on the look and feel of the film- which is hugely significant considering the legacy of the original.

Blade Runner probably didn't need a sequel but I quite liked this and it's wayyyyy better than Prometheus in regard to Ridley Scott franchise revivals.

Ryan Gosling was also very clearly the best man for the role as he excels at playing quiet weirdos. Not sure how I felt about Leto. Can't really talk about the other characters without spoiling things.

SEMI-SPOLIERSThere's a scene with a de-aged actor/character and it's the best de-aging special effects I've ever seen. I wasn't sure if it was CGI or an eerily similar actress at first, it just looked good. Makes Rogue One's CGI/de-aged characters look like trash.

It was a mess. But it did things that other Hollywood movies don't do anymore and I appreciate it for that.

Then. It was a mess, wasn't it? I liked some scenes and it is often inventive and almost always—at least—interesting.

But it is way too self-conscious and its originality becomes a gimmick. Let me explain. The movie isn't as fast paced as almost all the big Hollywood movies. At the contrary, it takes its time. But every scene takes its time even when it is absolutely not necessary. There are a lot of shots of Gosling slowly walking in great sets. Do great sets make a great movie? Some shots seem to be motivated by how great the set is. There is no reason for this movie to be that long.

What I was angry about in my previous post is not entirely bad in the movie—the impossible re-creation of the first movie isn't 100% of the movie, it even does what The Force Awakens doesn't do: it extends what was. But it is an act of re-creation. How did the first movie feel? Let's try to do that again. It's...awkward...But Villeneuve is good and it is visually beautiful. It does look clean but...it's kind of the nightmare of our modernity, no? Malls look like that. And it's scary. Does the movie wants to be scary? I'm not sure. But it can work in that context.

Everytime you have an old character in a sequel that takes time a lot of time after the original, the most important thing in his life is—more or less—linked to the first movie. What if the most important thing in the life of that character occurred after the original movie? What if it is absolutely foreign to us? That's what I was thinking at some point in the movie. Because we go back to the fetishization of the past. Something that the movie at some point in its plot criticizes while doing it!

The plot is actually good—even if it's overstuffed with nonsense and I was not surprised to read that the original writer gave a script of 80 pages to the studio before they decided to give it more content. There is a storyline in it that is dull version of Her. If you cut it the movie can be at least twenty minutes shorter.

So: I appreciate the movie for what it wants to do, its unusual pace, what it brings to the original. In english, does the expression having your ass between two chairs exist? Google tells me that it's "being caught between two stools". That's the position of the movie. It's caught back.

It's a shame that a science-fiction movie in 2017 proposes a version of the future from 1982.

PS: I don't understand all the fuss about spoilers. I can't understand feeling "spoiled" if you know the basic details. I never felt like I was exposed to mind blowing plot twists...

I found this far from a mess. Don't get that criticism. I understand the placement and pace of almost every scene (*there are a couple odd choices, but overall, it's so much better than it could have been)

I will wait until more have had time to see it to start Spoiler discussions, but I got lost in this. Completely beautiful and true to the original while being allowed to be something different.